–Letter from Student Executive Board, Columbia/Barnard Hillel
–etter from Morton Klein and Susan Tuchman, National President of the Zionist Organization of America (Klein) and Director of the Center for Law and Justice, Zionist Organization of America (Tuchman)
–Letter from Josh Rosner, Columbia College ‘08, Columbia/ Barnard Hillel President, 2007-2008

Hillel, by refusing to take one politically
specific avenue, becomes a “meek” or
“spineless” organization, a social club that is
afraid to enter the fray of politics and prefers
instead to shelter its members. Again, we
strongly disagree. We believe that providing
a forum where various strands of political
opinion may be expressed is a courageous
and strengthening endeavor. Such a forum
will force individuals to confront ideas that
may upset them but will also rightly include
the entire spectrum of Jewish opinion
surrounding Israel.

That being said, when Zionism—the right
of the Jewish people to have a homeland—or
any fundamental tenets of our organization are
attacked, we see it as our duty to respond swiftly
and accordingly. Most recently, in February
2009, when a number of campus individuals
demonized Israel as an apartheid state and
called for divestment, acts which we believed
had the intent of endangering Israel’s existence,
Hillel responded immediately and rebuked these
assertions in various pointed modes.

Lastly, we take particular issue with Mr.
Hirsch’s assertion that, “Hillel’s executive
board tries to have it both ways. To pro–
Israel students, Hillel claims that it actively
supports Israel through LionPAC. Yet to Jews
uncomfortable with Israel, Hillel’s executive
board argues that it merely provides a space
for pro–Israel activity through LionPAC,
and does not officially endorse any political
activity itself.” We have never told Mr. Hirsch,
or any other student for that matter, that Hillel
uses LionPAC as some sort of protective
agent, while simultaneously disengaging
from politics. Such claims are completely
unfounded and journalistically inaccurate.
Quite the contrary, Hillel fully supports and
endorses LionPAC. LionPAC is Hillel, just as
every Hillel group is Hillel. As with all Hillel
groups, LionPAC receives programmatic
guidance, support, advice and funding from
the student executive board. Regardless of
semantics, LionPAC had the support of this
student executive board at the rally this past
January. By the same token, we support
those Hillel groups whose opinions towards
Israel differ from that of LionPAC. And there
are several. Realizing this is a challenging,
nuanced, and frustrating position to some, we
ultimately adopt this organizational position
in the hopes that this openness to diverse
political opinion will allow students to engage
honestly with their own Jewish identity and
with one another.

This is what it means to be a fully
encompassing and engaged Jewish community.
While Mr. Hirsch may be secure in his brand
of Zionism, he has much to learn about
Jewish community.

Student Executive Board of Columbia/Barnard Hillel.

The Columbia/Barnard Hillel is the largest
organization for Jewish student life on campus. We offer
cultural, religious, inter–faith, social justice, Israel and
general social communal programming for all students.
For more information visit us at www.hillel.columbia.
edu or www.andthoushaltblog.blogspot.com

To the Editor:

Kudos to Jordan Hirsch for calling on
Columbia’s Hillel to start embracing Zionism
and organizing events that foster love and
support for Israel (“Forgetting Jerusalem:
Columbia’s Hillel Disengages from Zionism,”
Winter 2008). The fact that so many people
attended a solidarity–with–Israel rally on campus
in January attests to the interest in, and maybe
even the hunger for, pro–Israel programming.
Hillel is exactly the organization to
sponsor such programming at Columbia.

Indeed, as Hillel says on its website, it wants
Jewish students “to explore and celebrate
their Jewish identity,” and it recognizes that
part of students’ Jewish identity is tied to their
historical connection to the land of Israel.
Regardless of how religious each of us is,
regardless of how engaged each of us is in
the dialogue about the Arab–Israeli conflict,
we are all Jews. We are part of a collective, a
nation of people who share a history whose
roots are in Israel. If Hillel—the largest Jewish
campus organization in the world—does not
embrace and encourage that connection, then
how can we expect Jewish students to make
that connection themselves?

The ZOA has a long and proud history
of promoting bold and unapologetic Israel
advocacy on campus. We believe that this
is the responsibility of the larger Jewish
community, including Hillel.

Hillel, more than any other Jewish student
organization, has the means and the resources
to provide programming that will connect
students to Israel. That means sponsoring
speakers and events that encourage Jewish
students to recognize their link to their
homeland in Israel, a link that transcends their
religious views or their political persuasions.
Hillel should also build students’ pride in
Israel, sponsoring programs that show that
Israel is comprised of people of different races
and ethnicities, from all corners of the world,
both Jewish and non–Jewish. Hillel should
show students that Israel is a democracy, where
Jews and non–Jews, women, gays and other
minorities, have equal rights. Hillel should show
students that despite the enormous hardships
and challenges Israel has faced, it is a world
leader in medical, technological and other
areas of research and development. And Hillel
should show students that since its establishment
in 1948, Israel has sought to live in peace.

For Jewish students who are already
connected to Israel, that connection will
be strengthened by these efforts. For those
students who lack any attachment, Hillel will
be helping them to see themselves as part of the
Jewish People who share a common ancestry
and homeland rich with history and modernday
accomplishments. For any students feeling
marginalized on campus because of the anti–
Israel rhetoric, Hillel will be empowering
them. Armed with facts and information, they
will be able to speak out effectively and with
confidence against the anti–Israel rhetoric
on campus and in support of Israel. In the
process, their connection to their homeland
and pride in its actions will grow.

Hillel should rethink the direction it has
taken at Columbia. It will not build Jewish
identity by deliberately distancing itself
from pro–Israel activism. If it truly wishes to
succeed in its mission, Hillel must lead the
way in sending the message to students that
their links to their Jewishness include a strong
connection to Israel.

Morton Klein is the National President of the Zionist
Organization of America

Susan Tuchman is the Director of the Center for Law and
Justice, Zionist Organization of America

To the Editor:

Jordan Hirsch’s editorial raises a
fundamental question concerning Hillel: What
is the Executive Board of Hillel’s responsibility
to Israel. As a former president of Hillel, I was
shocked to read about the misguided response
from Hillel’s Israel Va’ad (committee) that it
“does not take political positions” in regard to
Israel, and that furthermore supporting a rally
would “implicitly endorse all actions taken in
the Gaza strip.” An honest response would have
been: “I will not support a rally for Israel.”
As Mr. Hirsch cited, one of Hillel’s task is
to support Israel as a Jewish and Democratic
state. The structure of Hillel’s Executive board
is designed to meet this stated goal. There are
several groups related to Israel, some that focus
upon the arts such as the Israel Culture Club
and others that concentrate upon the political
aspects concerning Israel such as LionPac
and PeaceNow. The Israel Va’ad (committee)
Coordinator is charged with overseeing and
providing guidance to all groups related to
Israel, and he or she is supposed to ensure
that Israel related programming and Israel
groups flourish on campus. Often, the Israel
Va’ad Coordinator need not take “political
stands” because political groups within Hillel
such as LionPac are incredibly effective at
supporting Israel on campus as both a “Jewish
and Democratic” state, thereby fulfilling
Hillel’s role on campus. However, the activism
and success of the Israel groups within Hillel
does not relinquish its basic responsibility of
defending and supporting Israel.

The Executive Board of Hillel’s role vis–à–
vis Israel is a complex relationship that is
constantly evolving as the groups themselves
within Hillel change. However, an important
goal of Israel Va’ad is to support Israel, whether
it is within the group structure or outside of it.
Whether a rally in the middle campus is the
most effective way to further that end is up for
debate. The responsibility of Hillel’s executive
to support Israel and its supporters is not.

Hillel claims that it will uncatagorically
defend Israel’s right to exist and right to self defense.
What E–board failed to realize is that
Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to
destroying Israel, posed a direct threat to Israel’s
sovereignty and its right to exist in peace when
it fired 5,500 rockets and 400 mortars in the
past four years onto Israel proper. One million
people in Israel were threatened by rockets on a
daily basis, at random, in the days and months
leading up to the operation in Gaza. President
Shimon Peres noted at the United Nations
World Economic Forum that both President
Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt both
unequivocally blamed Hamas for the recent
violence in Gaza. Why wasn’t Hillel’s Israel
Va’ad prepared to take a stand, and support
students to do same?

Learned Foote’s article “Gunning for
Citizenship” was thoughtful and informative.
He succeeded in framing the debate over
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) and
Columbia’s Navy Reserve Officer Training
Corps (NROTC) within the greater context
of history, that the march towards freedom,
equality, and citizenship requires participation
over exclusion. However, much of the student
body has grown weary of the constant
infighting amongst students on an issue that is
contentious and divisive. I want more emphasis
on action rather than on debate.

As a student, combat veteran, and ROTC
cadet, I observe both opponents and advocates
of NROTC engaging in a debate that is
meaningful and informative; but, the debate
does little to effect real change with DADT and
NROTC. Last semester a survey sponsored by
the student council showed the campus in an
ideological split. A majority of students agree
that DADT is outdated and discriminatory, but
the actions taken by both sides reflect widely
differing approaches to activism.

Opponents of ROTC recruitment at
Columbia try to see the world as it actually
is: they want maintain the status quo and
keep NROTC elsewhere. This is problematic,
especially since it promotes a “bunker
mentality.” There is no incentive to devote time
and resources towards the repeal i of DADT
beyond fighting for ROTC to remain off the
campus; thus, opponents stay in the “bunker.”

Advocates of ROTC try to see the world
as it should be: its goal is to have healthy
civil–military interaction and to infuse the
military with intuitive leaders. To reach that
goal, ROTC advocacy must be dynamic,
open, and mobile; it must choose the path of
least resistance. The reality, however, is that
NROTC will not be on campus until DADT
is repealed.

Both sides have reduced DADT as a means
to an end, either to keep ROTC off campus or
to bring it back.

What worries me most is the lack of campus
activism against DADT after the ROTC debate,
especially considering the movement is gaining
momentum. Last month Representative Ellen
Tauscher (D–CA) introduced H.R. 1283, or the
“Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” which
would replace DADT with a non–discriminatory
policy, reconciling the federal government with
Columbia’s anti–discrimination policy. It was
immediately referred to the Armed Service
Committee and waits there still.

Thought proceeds action—we need to get
the debate off the steps of Low Library and
into the halls of Congress.

I call on Columbia’s administration to
extend an invitation to bring NROTC back
on campus with the condition that “Don’t Ask
Don’t Tell” be replaced. Columbia is a potent
symbol in this debate and would do much
to bring a renewed focus in the effort to get
H.R. 1283 out of committee and into law.
The administration can have it both ways—
make a principled stand against DADT while
demonstrating its commitment to educating
future leaders of the Armed forces.

I call on the Columbia Queer Alliance,
Democrats, Republicans, the Military Veterans,
and the Hamilton Society to work together
and recognize the sacrifices made by the tens
of thousands of LBGT service–members and
veterans, and honor them by actively working
to bring H.R. 1283 onto the floor of the House
of Representatives. We must stop treating the
repeal of DADT as a means to an agenda, but
as an end in itself.

As Thomas Paine wrote in The American
Crisis, “These are the times that try men’s souls:
The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot
will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his
country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman.”

This is a war—but not against any
enemy except our own prejudices and
misconceptions. When I think of my fellow
soldiers serving in the military, I am deeply
humbled by their resolve to continue serving
our country in spite of DADT.

No matter the outcome of the ROTC
debate, the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is
a cause worth fighting for. Sign me up.

Philip Petrov’s “The Politics of Engagement”
is not only a fascinating, thought–provoking
piece, it is also timely. Petrov seems to write out
of a deep revulsion at the politically obsessed
culture that swept America during the 2008
election, a revulsion shared by what might
be deemed the “silent minority” of apathetic
Americans. He is right to question the notsotacit presumption in America that political
apathy is a sin. Yet Petrov misrepresents politics
as a vacuous, fear–driven attempt to preserve
the status quo only in order to hastily dismiss it.
That dismissal represents both an unacceptable
escapism and an alarming unwillingness to
engage with the problems of our politics.

Let’s be clear about the problem Petrov
identifies. He writes that “in our society,
there’s nothing less apathetic . . . than the
decision to abstain from politics.” This is only
true to a limited extent. Not only did almost
half the country deftly avoid the ballot box on
Election Day, but by most indications many
citizens will loose their enthusiasm for politics
now that the presidential election is over. For
many, apathy isn’t a deliberate choice at all;
it’s a default way of life.

Even with his argument suitably qualified,
Petrov’s article is a caricature of the political
activist’s view of art. Few people—and very few
serious ones—argue that art must be political.
More than that, apolitical art does not imply the
apolitical artist. Artists, I would argue, should
engage in politics because they are citizens.
Work can remain outside the realm of politics,
but as citizens we have (to use the phrase Petrov
so disparages) a “civic duty” to engage in the
political decisions that shape our lives.

Of course Petrov thinks that engaging in
American political discussion, with its “utter
ridiculousness,” isn’t worth the effort. And no
matter how much the result of the 2008 election
reinvigorated your faith in our democracy, it’s
hard to argue with that fact that American
politics remains childish and simplistic. But while
Petrov seems so critical of political participation,
he uncritically accepts the (admittedly dismal)
political situation. Why not, instead, change it? In
abandoning politics, Petrov ironically accepts the
Hobbesian model he derides: that politics can
only be “boring,” that it can never be “profound”
or “unpredictable.” Underlying Petrov’s essay,
it seems, is an unjustified pessimism about
the possibilities of reinvigorating our political
debate. If anything, our new president should
give us hope that rational, creative political
discourse will emerge once again.

Most puzzling of all are Petrov’s thoughts
on the functionality of politics. He argues that
advocating political participation is really
just an excuse to get our kids to obey the law.
But participation and the rule of law are not
necessarily linked; think of the numerous states
with a strong rule of law but no democracy
(such as China). More, the modern bureaucratic
state would proceed undeterred even with
widespread political apathy. We don’t advocate
political participation, then, because we are
worried about undermining the “rule of law”;
rather, participation is so important because
we know that politicians, unchecked by a
competent, alert citizenry, will not only lack the
incentive to work for our interests, but are also
likely to be prone to corruption—or worse.

Petrov is right to question a blind
endorsement of our current political
situation, a knee–jerk dismissal of apathy as
an intellectually indefensible position. It is
defensible, and Petrov does as good a job as
any. But we should help realize our ideals—
the “profound” and “unpredictable” political
debate Petrov wants—instead of resigning in
defeat, instead of conveniently dismissing the
current pettiness of our politics from the cozy
confines of political apathy.

Nick Kelly is a Columbia College senior. He can be reached
at nfk2101@columbia.edu.

Petrov in Response:

I’m very grateful for Kelly’s rich and
thoughtful letter. I have little right to accuse
Kelly of misreading my work, for I made
the choice to write my essay in a rhetorical,
metaphorical, and allegorical mode. I must
say, though, that Kelly’s interpretation of
my essay is different from my own. In an
irony of sorts, I don’t happen to agree with
some of the conclusions that Kelly extracted
from my article.

In my piece, I tried to suggest that there’s
something unhealthy, something pathological,
about the ways in which our society
approaches the question of politics. There’s a
tendency, I argued, to see the political process
as the primary avenue for the improvement of
human life. Associated with this tendency is a
compulsive desire to get everyone—that is, all
American citizens—involved in politics.

I don’t object to political participation;
on the contrary, I believe that Americans
need to be conscious of the institutions and
procedures that determine the distribution of
power in this country. I do object, however, to
the widespread belief that there’s something
wrong with choosing to avert one’s eyes from
the political sphere. Politics is only one of the
venues through which a person can transform
the world around him, and it’s useless to
pretend—as many of our social scientists
do—that the opposite of political engagement
is utter apathy.

It is obvious, I think, that the quality of
human life depends as much on the condition
of one’s mind as it does on political realities.
For those who seek to make this world a better
place, then, there’s plenty of psychological
work to be done. Embedded in the minds of
many individuals are fears, obsessions, and
anxieties that make it difficult for them to lead
rewarding lives—one doesn’t need Freud to
figure this out. And what’s just as unfortunate is
that—with terrifying consistency—people tend
to bring their psycho–emotional problems with
them to the ballot box. Like voters everywhere,
we inevitably graft our psychoses onto politics.
Mrs. Robertson’s dread of everyday life
transforms into a fear of criminals, so she
votes for the candidate who backs the harshest
penal measures. Mr. Robertson’s propensity to
worry about mundane problems morphs into
a suspicion that his country will be bombed,
so he casts his vote with a sense of paranoia
in his heart.

My point is simply that the form and content
of our political process is determined in large part
by the mental states of our citizens. And as long
as we insist on influencing the political process
without properly considering the impulses at
play within our minds, we’ll continue to project
our fears, compulsions, and apprehensions onto
the political realm. It’s as simple as Winnie the
Pooh, and I tend to think that the simplicity of
this point of view is what renders it unpalatable
to so many “intellectuals.”

All of this suggests that, while there’s
certainly no need to abandon politics, there is a
need to examine the psycho–emotional impulses
that affect the behavior of voters, activists, and
policymakers. Neurotic people give birth to
neurotic policies—if this little slogan reflects
even a degree of truth, then we can begin to
build a more attractive political process by taking
a closer look at the psychological stimuli hidden
beneath the political realm. And should we
choose to dismiss the study of psycho–emotional
impulses as an “unscientific” farce, we can
continue to be surprised every time our political
process yields a result we deem perverse.

In the end, Kelly—and I say this with
respect and admiration—drew the wrong
conclusion from my article. I didn’t argue for
a “dismissal” of politics; on the contrary, I
tried to show (indirectly, I admit) that we can
enrich our political discourse by working to
defeat the fears, phobias, and compulsions that
plague so many of us. My essay, then, was a
plea for political engagement. Kelly—who
rightly believes that we need to reinvigorate
our political process—didn’t seem to notice
that I’m on his side.